Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I relish the opportunity that this second procedural motion provides to canvass the reasons why we find ourselves in this situation today. The reason we are in this situation today is, as I mentioned in my first contribution to these procedural debates, that this government is seeking yet again to avoid scrutiny. It is the intention of this government, if these procedural motions are successful, to time-limit and time-manage this debate tomorrow.

These matters have not been completed over on the other side. They are still in progress. And yet the government are seeking to prejudge what will happen over in the other place—that that legislation will come across here in good time to be dealt with tomorrow. But even if that is the case, even if that does happen, even if the legislation is rammed through the House of Representatives, it does not give this government the justification to seek to deny this chamber the opportunity to provide the appropriate scrutiny that this legislation demands.

We in this place pride ourselves on not being like the other place. We in this place pride ourselves on often being the first people in this building to actually read the legislation. As we know, legislation often goes to a caucus committee—no-one reads it. It then goes to the caucus—no-one reads it. It goes to the cabinet, where no-one reads it. It goes to the House of Representatives, where the chances are no-one will read it. When legislation hits this chamber it is often the first time that legislators have actually read the legislation that has come before this parliament. So our responsibility in this chamber—it is an historic one; it is an important one—is taken very seriously. Clearly it is not by those on the other side of the chamber but we on this side of the chamber not only take our responsibility as opposition senators to provide scrutiny of the legislation of the government of the day very seriously but also take our separate role as senators in a house of review to provide the scrutiny that legislation demands very seriously.

Whenever we read government motions such as the one on the Notice Paper which talk about consideration of the government business order of the day relating to such and such a bill and that the bill listed be considered under a limitation of time we know that 'limitation of time' means denial of scrutiny. Limitation of time means preventing sunlight. Limitation of time means seeking to abrogate the prerogatives and responsibilities of this chamber. Whenever we hear the euphemism 'time limitation' we know what it means. It means the guillotine. We have come to expect nothing else from this government because we have seen time and again under this government procedural tactics used to deny the opportunity to apply scrutiny. We have seen it with the frequent use of the gag. We have seen it with the frequent use of the guillotine. This government have set new standards in relation to the use of the guillotine. They positively broke a hamstring at the start of this year so keen were they to apply the guillotine—so keen were they that the Senate had barely been sitting seven or eight days before the guillotine was applied. There was no possibility that the rationale could be claimed that the opposition had been obstructionist or delaying, because there had been only seven or eight sitting days of the Australian Senate before they sought to use the guillotine.

As I said, it comes as no surprise that the government are seeking to use a number of procedural measures, but we have seen something very interesting today. We know the Greens have long held themselves out as paragons of parliamentary virtue. They always did under the reign of Senator Bob Brown. Over time there was a relationship between the increase in the size of the parliamentary representation of the Australian Greens and their commitment to parliamentary scrutiny. When they were a small and happy few, they held tightly to the concept of parliamentary scrutiny. They would stand against every motion that sought to deny parliamentary scrutiny. But as their numbers grew they became more like the larger party they sit with. We had hoped for a brief time that with a change of leader, with the ascension of Senator Milne, there would be a new Australian Greens, that the Greens would grab hold of the spirit they once had to be a party of review and to support the prerogatives of this chamber. But Senator Milne has continued in the traditions of Senator Bob Brown, I am sad to say.

But we know why we are really here. It is for two reasons. The first is the carbon tax. The whole purpose of the this motion, which is to give precedence to the motion which Senator Collins seeks to move, is so that we can get through the parliament in record time a compensation measure for the carbon tax dressed up as an education initiative. The government are saying, 'We are simply rebadging the education tax rebate which is currently in existence and making it easier for people to get their hands on it.' That is what they say they are doing. Sure, they are rebadging it. Yes, they are making it easier to distribute that money. But the reason they are doing this is that they want to have a sugar hit. They want to give people something which will take a little bit of the pain away, maybe distract them or make them forget that the carbon tax has come and that it will cause a real increase in their cost of living. That is the purpose of this motion. It is to facilitate that sugar hit to the Australian economy. Some would say it is a stimulus of sorts. We know how well those go down. We know how well those have tracked before when the government have sought to pursue sugar hits. But this is really about seeking to distract people from the implementation of the carbon tax.

The other purpose of the suspension motion and this motion to give precedence to the motion that Senator Collins seeks to move is an attempt at a budget fix. The government is seeking to bring forward this spending which was previously under the guise of the education tax rebate together with grants to local government which together will amount to about $1.5 billion. Alone this almost accounts for this fake budget surplus which the government have presented. That is the other purpose of the motion that is before us today.

But the real reason we are here is the issue of economic management. That is why we are here. There had not been until this government a government that were so appalling at managing this nation's finances. How does that manifest itself? The thing that most people grab onto as a key measure of economic competence, of competence in managing the Australian budget, is the surplus figure—is the budget in surplus or in deficit? Why do people grab that? Because it tells you whether a government can live within its means, whether it is capable of managing its finances. I will explain it to you, Madam Acting Deputy President Fisher, even though I know you know this. A surplus means that a government receives more in revenue than it spends in a particular financial year. A deficit means that it spends more than comes in as revenue. The job of a government is to make sure that revenue and expenditure roughly match. If a government has very large surpluses over an extended period of time it tells you that the government is taxing too much. On the other hand, if a government has consistent budget deficits over time that tells you that the government is spending too much. A government's job is to manage priorities and to manage the differences between revenue and spending.

This government does not have a great record, I think it would be fair to say. I know it is a bit of an understatement, but it does not have a terrific record when it comes to that key test of competence of an Australian government. Mr Swan, when he came into government, did something very helpful: he changed the colour of the budget papers. When we were in government we went for basic, simple, classic, elegant white. This government changed them to blue. That colour change is very handy, because it distinguishes easily for everyone those budgets which are in surplus and those which are in deficit. Let me count them: we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 white, surplus budgets. I know this cannot possibly be unparliamentary conduct, Madam Acting Deputy President, because these are budget papers. So we have 10 surplus budgets from the previous government. Thank you so much, Wayne Swan, for changing the colour of the budget papers so that we can more easily distinguish surplus budgets from deficit budgets. What did we have for 2008-09? Any prizes for guessing: surplus or deficit?

Opposition senators: Deficit!

Yes, deficit. Despite what it says inside:

We are budgeting for a surplus of $21.7 billion in 2008-09, 1.8 per cent of GDP, the largest budget surplus as a share of GDP in nearly a decade.

Let us hear that again:

… the largest budget surplus as a share of GDP in nearly a decade.

Wrong: it was a deficit. In 2009-10, any prizes?

Opposition senators: Deficit!

Yes, it was a deficit. Here is 2010-11, our luck's got to change soon, doesn't it? It cannot be all bad luck.

Opposition senators: Deficit!

Deficit. Madam Deputy President, you can hazard a guess for 2011-12: surplus or deficit?